[css-cascade-6] Publish an updated WD

[bramus]

Looking at the current WD of css-cascade-6 it still includes both the strong and weak scoping steps in the cascade. Since then, with the WG we settled on using only weak scoping, among a few other changes & additions, as listed in the changes:

• Clarified that scope proximity is a single measurement of the steps between a single scoping root and scoped style rule subject.
• Removed strong scope proximity. (Issue 6790)
• Removed the scoped descendant combinator (deferred). (Issue 8628)
• Added the CSSScopeRule interface. (Issue 8626)

I think it would be good to publish an updated WD as authors that read the WD will be confused: the thing that’s shipping in Safari and Chrome (and Firefox in the future) implements the cascade as currently described only in the ED, not the WD.

Any concerns with this, @mirisuzanne?

[mirisuzanne]

No concerns – happy to publish a new WD.

[mirisuzanne]

@astearns @atanassov - I think the changes here are all based on resolutions already, but we could get one here if needed. Maybe at the top of tomorrow's meeting, or async?

[astearns]

If all of the normative changes are backed by resolutions you can use https://wiki.csswg.org/spec/publish as the resolution link to publish a regular working draft (see step 2)

[svgeesus]

@bramus I see that an updated WD has not been published. Editors @fantasai @mirisuzanne @tabatkins Do you need any help?

[mirisuzanne]

I think I was wrong about all changes having resolutions. I'm not sure where the first bullet point was discussed or resolved. #8380 has a comment along the same lines, but is related to a deferred feature (a scope combinator rather than nesting). I'll see if I can track down a resolution.

#8518 might also be related, but isn't an exact match

[astearns]

Is that part of the change perhaps related to #7233? I’m guessing the clarification was meant to be followed by defining the ~~ combinator, but that got deferred.

[mirisuzanne]

Yeah, I think it came out of discussions around 8380 (>>) and 7233 (~~) which got deferred. Because they made that particularly unclear. But I don't see resolution around it. 🤷🏻‍♀️ I don't think it's controversial. Happy to go ahead and publish. Just something I noticed.

[css-meeting-bot]

The CSS Working Group just discussed [css-cascade-6] Publish an updated WD, and agreed to the following:

• RESOLVED: we publish current draft, and we open an issue for the multiple nested scopes

The full IRC log of that discussion

<matthieud> miriam: we want to publish an updated for cascade-6 with @scope
<matthieud> miriam: we are not tracking multiple scope proximity, we only look at the proximity of the single closest one
<matthieud> miriam: do we need to resolved that first or we can publish and keeping this opened ?
<TabAtkins> matthieud: I think this is about taking into account nested scope, and instead of just looking at the closest one to do disambiguation..
<TabAtkins> matthieud: If the closest is equal in scope, you'd go up one level, etc
<TabAtkins> miriam: Right. Tho there's also an issue about if there's a different number of scopes.
<TabAtkins> matthieud: Yeah, I see no reason why it should only be the first one.
<TabAtkins> matthieud: Don't have giant use-cases for the nested ones, but still seems weird we completely forget about the outer scopes.
<matthieud> PROPOSED RESOLUTION: we publish current draft, and we open an issue for the multiple nested scopes
<fantasai> sgtm
<matthieud> RESOLVED: we publish current draft, and we open an issue for the multiple nested scopes
<bramus> 🎉